David Aitken
-
Posts
2,256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by David Aitken
-
-
Your losses do matter in CM Operations. As BTS has explained at length, it would be unrealistic to carry the same force over to another Battle or Operation, because in reality it would not have been exactly the same. Focusing on your combat effectiveness in a single Battle makes much more sense.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cubbies Phan wrote:
IIRC, David Aitken (I think) asked Tiger for what reason he wanted a moddable casualty bitmap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Credit where credit is due – that was Seanachai.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mark IV wrote:
I was particularly curious about the linkage of Tiger's dead body to the Peng thread<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, I thought he was being a bit unreasonable, but did someone really have to go and kill him?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzer Leader wrote:
So, I would like to see an option in CM2 whereby I can fight fifty foot tall women. In addition, maybe alien space-ships and alternate realities would be cool. Can we have this for CM2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This, coming from someone whom I credited with maturity, reason, and tactical competence, is quite ridiculous. What justification do you have for 50-foot women being in the game, or alien spaceships? Do you have any sources which indicate that these were present on the Russian Front during the Second World War? Do you have any proof that 50-foot women ever existed? Many people have cited as evidence the film Attack Of The 50-foot Woman, but amongst more learned circles this is generally regarded to be fake. As for aliens, you may have a case, but all the evidence is held by the government and BTS do not have enough staff to risk having one shot whilst attempting to access the relevant archives.
Moreover, even if proof were forthcoming, would you have specific information on the offensive and defensive capabilities of the average 50-foot woman or UFO? As we well know, BTS will not consider modelling anything based on sheer speculation or folklore. One might imagine such a large female to have a powerful 'sulk' capability and to inflict devastating guilt trips, whereas her size would probably not compensate for the typical thin skin, but these are only guesses. As for aliens, by this stage all of BTS and probably half of the forum members would have been abducted and incarcerated by the CIA.
So I think your chances of presenting a strong enough case to persuade BTS to include your requests in CM2 are pretty slim. And please don't argue that they should do it anyway and then make it a toggleable option for those who want it – as most of us well know, this would detract from the time available to BTS to include more relevant and widely-requested features such as realistic blood and gore, guilt modifiers on combat effectiveness, ray-tracing, and the PzKpfw VIII ausf.B Schweres Übermaus.
In future kindly stop and think before you clutter up the forum with your fanciful nonsense. Now go back to playing Tribes or whatever it is you gamey lackwits do these days.
And a reference for the smiley dependent:
Sarcasm, Light-hearted -
Okay, how about this:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This debate has already spawned a new thread here. We don't need another.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Indeed a smiley can make all the difference, but a lot of people seem to assume that absence of smilies is deliberate. Maybe we should have an 'arrogant' smiley with its nose turned up, and a 'sarcastic' smiley with its lip curled, so that those who rely on smilies to decide on the tone of a comment can be sure that someone is being spiteful.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Germanboy wrote:
So in an assault you are allowed to lose quite a lot more guys and tanks than in a probe etc.pp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This would, I think, be unreasonable as long as the goal is to capture certain points on the terrain. For example:
• Assault: take the objective at all cost.
• You outnumber the enemy 2:1.
• Therefore, you are allowed to take high casualties, but in effect you should totally overpower the enemy.
• Probe: take the objective if you can.
• Your forces are equal to the enemy's.
• Therefore, you are not allowed to take high casualties, but you are at a disadvantage and will be lucky to take the objectives without losing the majority of your forces.
In other words, just now it is effectively the other way round: a Probe will probably result in heavy casualties, whereas an Assault should be easy and not hurt you much at all.
Of course, you are talking about scenario design, in which case the definitions of Probe, Attack and Assault would be distinct from the force sizes and mission objectives.
Personally, I tend to play cautiously, and have on occasion withdrawn my forces instead of throwing them in for a final assault on the objectives which might win me the battle, but would doubtlessly destroy most of what I have left. I am not, however, aware of any of my opponents playing kamikaze-style, so this is not of major concern to me.
Sounds like a good idea, though, and would certainly encourage more realistic play.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CMplayer wrote:
... sorry ... sorry ... sorry ... god bless ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I doubt it was a cesspudlian you played if they beat you.
This guy sounds about as dangerous as a small pile of polystyrene chips. I bet he could give anyone here a sound working over.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Babra wrote:
You've hurt my feelings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well of course I have, I'm just a pompous, holier-than-thou old git, and I've taken a sudden dislike to you and the fact that you posted here, and I resent the fact that you're still able to post, so I intend to browbeat you into submission whenever I see you exercising the supposed right to state your opinion. Didn't I once see you contributing to a thread which questioned the accuracy of the way CM is modelled? Right, that's it, I'm sending the flying squad round to your house to shoot you and round up your family and friends for incarceration on a remote Scottish island. And as you all know, I get backhanders from BTS to be their unofficial board police. There, it's all out, I've admitted it, that should make Tiger and Jeff Heidman and co happy.
-
-
Hey, look at this fellas! A #30! This one even outranks BTS!
Doesn't mean he's not still newbie scum, mind...
-
In the thread in question, I pointed out two things;
• The discussion quickly moved on from the subject of Tiger's proposed bitmap. Therefore, as I clearly stated to Tiger, the argument was not entirely relevant to him, and he should not feel the need to defend himself.
• Tiger was the only person to direct personal insults.
No-one in that thread was seeking to simply prevent Tiger having his way for the sake of it. The debate wasn't even about his bitmap, it was about wider issues. However, as soon as the first dissent was voiced, he became quickly irritated, and started throwing insults.
I appreciate that Tiger has produced some good modifications for CM, and that many here would obviously be sad if he were to leave. But if he can't bear to see debate on this forum (otherwise what is it for?), then that's his problem.
No-one did anything which would encourage him to leave – he simply reacted badly to what he saw, and apparently couldn't bear to see any more.
-
Oh mensch, you sweetie, I didn't think you cared!
-
Cool mod PB! Can we have a subdued version to simulate the election aftermath?
SUBDUED GORE MOD
[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]
-
The only random scenario generator I know of is programmed into CM. Start up CM, click on Play Game, select Quick Battle at the top and click on Play Scenario.
Maybe you mean the random endgame thingy? I think TeAcH is responsible for that... if you find one of his posts it may have a link for you.
-
The Challenger is essentially a lengthened Cromwell with a bigger turret to accommodate the 17-pounder gun, about the best antitank gun on the battlefield, which is also mounted in the Sherman Firefly and the very late-war Comet. However, the appearance of the Challenger in CM is misleading – see my thread on the subject:
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stuka wrote:
*Silly thing to say but the poor things heart was obviously racing and it was the best she could come up with*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think she meant to say "wanking", but corrected herself when she remembered that lowlifes like you keep her in a job.
-
-
-
Please keep BTS happy and post this kind of thing IN the Peng Thread. That's what it's for.
And as for Roborat and chums... I was about to point out that your resurrection of the old thread was going to lead to this kind of thing, but Madmatt arrived just as I was intimating that he would. Yet again, some of us feel the need to surrender our self-control and expect BTS to force it back upon us, thus confirming the anti-Peng camp's beliefs...
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Elvis wrote:
Not only do I love numbers (my father is a mathematician.... no he really is a college professor) so it isn't the numbers you slackjaws.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe so, but you do seem to have lost a grasp of basic English sentence structure. Probably suppressed trauma. You want to love the numbers, but the numbers just let you hang on without returning your affection, and eventually you never hear from them again, and you're left wondering what the f*** they think they are doing with your head, and why the f*** they think they can get away with that while all the time swearing blind that they're not doing what it's patently obviously that they are.
Sorry, what was I talking about?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#1510 wrote:
I'm working on a mod.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hope it isn't a blood-and-gore bitmap for the infantry, or I may have to despatch a commando team to shoot you and dissolve your carcasse in acid, and then round up your family and friends and anyone who knows you or acknowledges your existence and lock them away, in case the unwashed masses hear the slightest suggestion of a voice dissenting with my conviction that CM is totally perfect as-is. I wouldn't want to let #1670 down, now would I?
-
I hereby propose that we refer to each other exclusively by member #, thus driving #159 insane and possibly snapping him out of his neurosis (I couldn't be bothered looking up 'neurosis' to check whether it means what I think it means, so kindly assume it to mean what I want it to mean, and if you don't know what I want it to mean, then you bloody well should.)
Edited because I got the '9' in #159's name the wrong way up.
[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: #1222 ]
Edited to correct the mention of someone called "David Aitken".
[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]
-
I think the clinching issue, as discussed in the above threads, was that the Petard round was seen to tumble in flight, thus negating the directional charge characteristic of the PIAT. Indeed I argued that the Petard was a bunker-buster, but others had reason to believe that the Churchill mouting a Petard was more of an all-purpose engineering vehicle designed for destroying obstacles, rather than taking on bunkers in a combat situation. For one thing, the loader is extremely vulnerable to enemy fire.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff Heidman wrote:
I'm sorry, I guess my "sarcasm" was a little too sophisticated for you, so I will spell it out:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Or maybe at that point you didn't care to construct a proper argument, but preferred to make smart-alec comments which wouldn't provoke an argumentative response – playing to the gallery as usual. Anyway, glad to see you making the effort at last.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Every objection you made based on "realism" or gore can as easily be made against the current model. Every single one. The current "dead guy" model is just as much "eye-candy" as a dead guy model with a bullet hole in him. Your entire argument is predicated upon the idea that any graphical improvement that does not impart a greater level of information about the game itself is unnecessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How convenient of you to reshape your argument, as the original version has now been rendered obsolete. Unfortunately for you, mine does not follow suit. As I mentioned earlier, in your sarcastic zeal, you fail to appreciate that this is a matter of degrees, not a simple black-and-white issue of what should or should not be in the game.
I have never argued that graphics are unnecessary to the game, as your first post to this thread would suggest. I do, however, recall you making very similar sarcastic remarks in a previous thread, again simply ignoring the issue and distorting my argument for attempted comic effect. My argument, in that case and this, is not that uninformative graphics are unnecessary, but that graphics designed in the pursuit of 'immersiveness' at the expense of accuracy are undesirable.
The current 'dead body' is logical because it is a fitting means of conveying otherwise unavailable information to the player. The proposed 'blood', or in the previous case, damage to tanks, would be a very complex undertaking if it were not to be misleading. Embellishing a dead soldier with bullet-holes, or a knocked-out tank with charred paintwork, is pure fanciful 'eye-candy' with no basis in the underlying game engine, and moreover, it presents a misleading impression of what has happened to the unit in question.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That arguemtn would apply as well (or rather, not as well) if the current standard was my perviously mentioned generic marker that was not a dead guy lying on the ground. In fact, I am absolutely CERTAIN that if the current standard was anything other than what it is, you and Slap would be vociferously defending THAT as the perfect balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are apparently more certain of my own tendencies than I am, which well demonstrates the alternative realities you create for youself.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I have NEVER said that anyone who defends BTS is a sycophant, that would be inane since I have defended them time and again. Of course, you guys ignore that because it does not fit into your pat version of reality your selfless devotion of yourselves to facing off the hoards of ingnorant 14 year olds trying to turn CM into a cross between Army Men and Close Combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is possibly the most hypocritical statement I have heard from you yet, but that isn't saying much. I am amazed that you should claim that I personify you as a stalwart anti-BTS protester, which I do not, whilst simultaenously personifying me as a stalwart pro-BTS protester. This latter trait is the very thing which I have always found objectionable about your arguments; every time you enter an argument with me, your opening swing is to accuse me of arguing in support of CM solely because it is CM. Now you are supporting your sweeping accusations with the claim that I accused you first – an assertion which is nothing but a fabrication of your own mind.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>See, I have this odd ability to actually recognize other peoples point of view and not polarize myself based on my opposition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am quite aware of this, and have never contested such a claim. My problem is with your method of argument which, as I have said, invariably seems to involve directing the very accusations at the opposing party which you claim are being directed at you, instead of actually constructing a reasoned argument to address the issues which are being debated.
Sarcasm, Light-hearted
Unacceptable Losses
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
That is not so much a case of you losing points because you lost troops, but rather the enemy gaining points against you because you lost troops. You can't have 100 points if the enemy has 25 points. This is not the same as being penalised for wasting your own forces.